739 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27447758)
1. Adjustments of the amplitude mapping function: Sensitivity of cochlear implant users and effects on subjective preference and speech recognition.
Theelen-van den Hoek FL; Boymans M; van Dijk B; Dreschler WA
Int J Audiol; 2016 Nov; 55(11):674-87. PubMed ID: 27447758
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Improving speech perception in noise with current focusing in cochlear implant users.
Srinivasan AG; Padilla M; Shannon RV; Landsberger DM
Hear Res; 2013 May; 299():29-36. PubMed ID: 23467170
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Optimizing the perception of soft speech and speech in noise with the Advanced Bionics cochlear implant system.
Holden LK; Reeder RM; Firszt JB; Finley CC
Int J Audiol; 2011 Apr; 50(4):255-69. PubMed ID: 21275500
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Fitting prelingually deafened adult cochlear implant users based on electrode discrimination performance.
Debruyne JA; Francart T; Janssen AM; Douma K; Brokx JP
Int J Audiol; 2017 Mar; 56(3):174-185. PubMed ID: 27758152
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Forward masking patterns by low and high-rate stimulation in cochlear implant users: Differences in masking effectiveness and spread of neural excitation.
Zhou N; Dong L; Dixon S
Hear Res; 2020 Apr; 389():107921. PubMed ID: 32097828
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. A directional remote-microphone for bimodal cochlear implant recipients.
Vroegop JL; Homans NC; Goedegebure A; van der Schroeff MP
Int J Audiol; 2018 Nov; 57(11):858-863. PubMed ID: 30261771
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Spectral contrast enhancement improves speech intelligibility in noise for cochlear implants.
Nogueira W; Rode T; Büchner A
J Acoust Soc Am; 2016 Feb; 139(2):728-39. PubMed ID: 26936556
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. A physiologically-inspired model reproducing the speech intelligibility benefit in cochlear implant listeners with residual acoustic hearing.
Zamaninezhad L; Hohmann V; Büchner A; Schädler MR; Jürgens T
Hear Res; 2017 Feb; 344():50-61. PubMed ID: 27838372
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Effects of insertion depth on spatial speech perception in noise for simulations of cochlear implants and single-sided deafness.
Zhou X; Li H; Galvin JJ; Fu QJ; Yuan W
Int J Audiol; 2017; 56(sup2):S41-S48. PubMed ID: 27367147
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Results using the OPAL strategy in Mandarin speaking cochlear implant recipients.
Vandali AE; Dawson PW; Arora K
Int J Audiol; 2017; 56(sup2):S74-S85. PubMed ID: 27329178
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Masking release with changing fundamental frequency: Electric acoustic stimulation resembles normal hearing subjects.
Auinger AB; Riss D; Liepins R; Rader T; Keck T; Keintzel T; Kaider A; Baumgartner WD; Gstoettner W; Arnoldner C
Hear Res; 2017 Jul; 350():226-234. PubMed ID: 28527538
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Avoiding disconnection: An evaluation of telephone options for cochlear implant users.
Marcrum SC; Picou EM; Steffens T
Int J Audiol; 2017 Mar; 56(3):186-193. PubMed ID: 27809627
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Assessment of speech recognition abilities in quiet and in noise: a comparison between self-administered home testing and testing in the clinic for adult cochlear implant users.
de Graaff F; Huysmans E; Merkus P; Theo Goverts S; Smits C
Int J Audiol; 2018 Nov; 57(11):872-880. PubMed ID: 30261772
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Optimising the effect of noise reduction algorithm ClearVoice in cochlear implant users by increasing the maximum comfort levels.
Dingemanse JG; Goedegebure A
Int J Audiol; 2018 Mar; 57(3):230-235. PubMed ID: 29065731
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Electric and acoustic harmonic integration predicts speech-in-noise performance in hybrid cochlear implant users.
Bonnard D; Schwalje A; Gantz B; Choi I
Hear Res; 2018 Sep; 367():223-230. PubMed ID: 29980380
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Effects of Threshold Adjustment on Speech Perception in Nucleus Cochlear Implant Recipients.
Busby PA; Arora K
Ear Hear; 2016; 37(3):303-11. PubMed ID: 26671316
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Performance benefits for adults using a cochlear implant with adaptive dynamic range optimization (ADRO): a comparative study.
Müller-Deile J; Kiefer J; Wyss J; Nicolai J; Battmer R
Cochlear Implants Int; 2008 Mar; 9(1):8-26. PubMed ID: 18300224
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Lexical tone recognition in noise in normal-hearing children and prelingually deafened children with cochlear implants.
Mao Y; Xu L
Int J Audiol; 2017; 56(sup2):S23-S30. PubMed ID: 27564095
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. An investigation of input level range for the nucleus 24 cochlear implant system: speech perception performance, program preference, and loudness comfort ratings.
James CJ; Skinner MW; Martin LF; Holden LK; Galvin KL; Holden TA; Whitford L
Ear Hear; 2003 Apr; 24(2):157-74. PubMed ID: 12677112
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Clinical outcomes with the Kanso™ off-the-ear cochlear implant sound processor.
Mauger SJ; Jones M; Nel E; Del Dot J
Int J Audiol; 2017 Apr; 56(4):267-276. PubMed ID: 28067077
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
